[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: For those who care about batik

Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>>   Could you check all that, please ?
> fop v0.95 needs Batik 1.7. I agree that it should go to experimental
> first. 
> It seems that it needs this version for WMF stuff (at least).
> I also changed gcj to openjdk6.

  Perfect. I added a runtime dependency on batik 1.7 too, just to be sure...

>>   In addition, the debian/copyright file needs updating: most of the
>> files are Apache 2.0 (and not 1.1), but some files are public domain.
>> You might also want to make it a little more clear how the .dfsg archive
>> was made... (debian/README.debian only says about 0.94.dfsg, not the
>> 0.95 version !).
> Where did you see files in public domain ?

  Using licensecheck, I picked up a few -- I'll have a look into it later.

> I udpated the README.Debian and took the opportunity to add a script to
> repack the archive.
> See revision 7120.

  Great !

>>   BTW, it probably would be worth trying to adapt fop.sh and
>> fop-ttfreader.sh to the java-wrappers stuff, in order to offer a more
>> consistent interface with batik and other programs too - but I can do
>> that, since I wrote java-wrappers, after all ;-)...
> You are welcome :)

  I switched fop.sh to java-wrappers. You can see that it lead to a
significant decrease of the size ;-)... Could you check it works fine ?
If that is the case, I'll switch the other wrapper too, and we'll upload
to main/experimental (there are no reasons to keep it out of main, now !).


	Vincent, glad that things are going on, even if we definitely are too
late for Lenny...

Vincent Fourmond, Debian Developer

If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it
was that quite often, it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
 -- Terry Pratchet, Guards, guards !

Vincent, listening to Send Me An Angel (Scorpions)

Reply to: